How do deployed military folk maintain their relationship?

...separation or the threat thereof. This problem occurs MOST often with the military, because military folk tend to endure separation far more often than most other professions. Next in line are the professions bearing the THREAT of separation in the WORST way possible; loss of life. First of all, a military person endures the threat from TWO puncture wounds; the actual separation due to assignment AND the FINAL separation due to loss of life. Other professions that suffer the threat of loss of life include Police, Fire Fighters, Primary Response Rescue Personnel, among MANY others who battle to maintain the lives of us less heroic to a tolerable level. The SPOUSES of such persons would MUCH prefer that less risky employment opportunities would be FAR more appealing.

The threat of losing one's spouse can be QUITE draining on the one who is not at risk. SO draining, in fact, that the strain CAN, and frequently DOES result in separation and divorce, simply because the STRESSED spouse has more power over the loss. Poor explanation? Yes, perhaps it is, but this is the best I can bring to bear according to what I have personally observed.

Mike Starre

My relationship with my fiance is a VERY strong one. I love him sooo much that I will endure anything that I have to, to make it work. Right now he is in Afghanistan. He is able to visit every three to four months; and you know, I never take our relationship for granted and I believe it makes our relationship stronger. He is over there to make a living so we can have a decent life and I appreciate that even more because he is working so hard. We are able to keep in touch constantly via the internet and cell phone. If something happens he always sends me a text telling me everything is okay, so I do not have to worry so much. I send him pictures all the time and I know he appreciates it, and I send him care packages often with little surprises and things that he really likes. So even though we may be apart physically, and only for a few months at a time, we are still very much together :)) together we are making it work and I am putting an extra effort into our relationship. He always has the upper hand even though we are apart physically for a good bit. I discuss everything with him and I let him make all the decisions. He is very much a part of my life and always will be :))
It just takes meeting that special person and I hope that you have or will very soon!

Liz

My husband is currently in Afghanistan. I have spoke with him many times about taken in hand. We have been married 9 years and most of those years he has been overseas off and on. We face many challenges trying to make taken in hand work. I do not believe it is the distance that prevents us from the enjoyment of taken in hand. I have struggled explaining to my husband that I desire his control. Of course with him being gone I control everything. Distance should not be a problem if you start out strong with taken in hand before you leave. Provide your special lady with specifics of how to do things and make requests when you are able to talk. I wish my husband could understand the things that I have written. He could tell me to sit every hour and meditate, he could give me a budget to live by, etc. That would make me feel so much closer to him.....I wish you all the best and please stay safe.

My husband is in the military and there are many times that he is away and we must endure long periods of time appart from each other. I can not say how it works for others but I can tell you how it works for us. There is not a moment that goes by that I do not feel my husband's presence. He walks with me always and I carry myself and behave in a manor that I know would honor him. We communicate as much as possible and keep the excited going by coming up with neat things to do when he returns. We pick out new adult items that we can look forward to using. We talk about our love for each and what we mean to each other. We send cards and we never let the other one forget that we think of them always. As for the taken in hand part of the relationship I think it is simple - as I said before he walks with me always and I behave accordingly. I miss the attention and his control when he is gone but I never forget that even in his absence he is still in charge. Then when we come together I do everything in my power to show him how much I love him and he does the same.

Good question. How can the husband can maintain his dominant or controlling role in the marriage, when he's often away and unable to exert direct physical control? I'm not sure I have any solutions to offer, partly because I'm not in a Taken In Hand relationship yet, but still looking for one. But I do think that this question is a central or even crucial one to raise here; and I do have my own guesses as to how that might work for me personally. "Long-distance control" is an issue that I've seen discussed frequently in the context of D/s (dominant/submissive) relationships; but it's equally important in a Taken In Hand context, or maybe even more so.

The possibility of long-distance control depends mostly on what control options are open to the man to use. The term "Taken In Hand" carries the implicit connotation that the man exerts active control over his wife, who may sometimes be resistant to his leadership. For some people, this active control needs to be physical -- the man is able to gain the upper hand because he's bigger and stronger and can physically control his wife, and thus impose his will on her, over her objections. ("Consensual non-consent.") With other Taken In Hand couples, the man's control over his resistant wife can be maintained in other ways; almost any way in which he holds more power than she does, and can use that power to actively exert his control over her.

Personally, I've always felt that what I needed was direct physical control from a man. That's what excites me sexually and romantically, and to me that's the whole point of a Taken In Hand romance. Most of the other ways that men have tried to control women leave me cold. (Things like: manipulation; threatening to embarrass her; acting like he's smarter and wiser; using money as a weapon or tool for control; threatening to destroy or throw out her possessions; etc. None of those things feel sexy or loving to me, and it would damage my respect and trust for the man if he tried to pull those tricks to control me.) But any kind of direct and forceful physical control on the man's part is something that I find immensely sexy and impressive. Not just spanking, but various other ways of demonstrating his physical domination; such as wrestling her down, pushing her around, backing her into a wall, forcing her down to her knees, etc. The idea that his strong sexy body is all that he needs in order to dominate me is immensely thrilling to me.

But suppose I loved a man who was away for extended periods of time, and not there to physically dominate me? (And, btw, I'm quite attracted to the soldier or military type; there are few things sexier than a warrior, a man who knows how to fight and who enjoys it. I'm also attracted to martial artists; and to the sword-wielding warriors of historical reenactment groups, like the SCA or RenFaire.) Does the man's dominance just take a break while he's away? Or is there some way to continue it even in his absence? Back when I was more interested in D/s than Taken In Hand, I would have said that there is no way for a man to impose his dominance on a woman while he's away, or in a long-distance relationship. But lately I have been rethinking many things. One thing I like about Taken In Hand is that the romance and sexuality -- hence, the masculine domination -- is not limited to just the bedroom. But is it still limited to only those times when he's physically present to enforce it? I don't think it is; but it's a bit tricky to explain why. (And I'm not sure how much of this might apply to others, and how much is just my own personal idiosyncracies.)

Let me start with the context of sacred sexuality, as a means to explain this. As a Wiccan/pagan, there is a deep connection for me between sexuality and religion. While I have close and loving relationships with several Gods and Goddesses, there are a few Gods with whom I feel a passionate, sexually intimate connection. (Usually the ones that I regard as aspects of the Horned God of Wicca.) The nature of the relationship varies from being quite informal and friendly, to one of intense worshipful devotion. (Very similar to what I imagine would be the natural arc, or swing of the pendulum, in a relationship with a human romantic lover.) In my experience, the Gods are not very bossy or demanding; but when They do tell me to do some particular thing, I'm likely to obey Them. Why? It's not like They are going to spank me or physically force me, because They are not even there physically. (While the Gods may have form in some other, spiritual dimension, in this dimension of reality They have a spiritual presence only.) In fact, while there might be some karmic consequences for my actions -- which is often the whole point of the Gods providing some guidance -- there may not be any "punishment" or bad consequences at all. So, why do I obey Them? Or even worship Them at all?

Here I think it's useful to make a distinction between two different models of Taken In Hand: an "obedience/punishment" model, versus a "conquest/surrender" model.

The obedience/punishment model seems to suggest (in my interpretation anyway) that the main point of Taken In Hand is to get the woman to obey the man; and the means of doing that is by providing "negative reinforcement" -- that is, spanking or some other punishment that she is motivated to avoid. By contrast, in the conquest/surrender model the whole point of the Taken In Hand aspects is to increase the sexual passion and ecstasy of a romantic loving relationship. In that model, the man conquers and dominates his woman NOT as "punishment" but as *pleasure*. He uses his physical force to overpower her and conquer her and compel her to surrender to his will. He actively "takes her in hand" not to "correct" her but to bring out her deepest, most secret, submissive devotion -- that tender and vulnerable sweet spot that most women in our culture have been trained to hide and deny at all costs.

(As the Goreans put it, his physical conquest of her helps her to find her "slave belly." I'm not a Gorean nor do I have any desire to be a "slave", but I think I still can understand what that means.)

Then what? Once I'm feeling utterly conquered and dominated, I become very submissive to his will, ecstatic in my surrender to his control. (Again, while I have not yet had a Taken In Hand relationship, I understand myself and my desires in this area very well.) In effect, the man who can so thoroughly conquer me physically and sexually has also conquered me emotionally and spiritually, so that my will becomes subjugated (to some extent) to his will. What I feel towards him is an incredible sexual attraction, mingled with fear and admiration and awe. In effect, he becomes like a god to me -- with me as his devoted and submissive priestess. So here is where the parallel between religion and romance comes in, and how marriage to an absentee lover can conceivably be related to a spiritual devotion to a deity. In both cases the conquering idol is not physically present, but still dominant over me; because his dominance ultimately derives from my feelings of worship and awe towards him.

Does that mean that I become completely compliant to everything he wants, with no desires of my own, no spark and fire of challenge or resistance? No, of course not. I might still disagree with him, argue with him, even yell at him. (Heck, I yell at the Gods sometimes, so why not my man?) But if the man is smart and perceptive and insightful -- and I wouldn't be loving him if he wasn't -- then he will understand how to evoke my feelings of worship towards him, even in non-physical ways while he's away. So the romance can continue to flame with the fire of his conquest and my surrender, even when he's not around to impose his dominance over me physically. However, this is not quite the same as the case with religion; because, unlike the Gods, he would definitely need to be physically present at intervals, first to establish and later to reinforce his physical domination. (Something that I can't really demand of the Gods; although I do have a few other tests that They need to pass in order to prove to me their reality and their power.)

So, if my man can bring me to a state of awe and devotion towards him -- then he can also bring me to submit to his control and his will, even when he's not physically present. That means that it would indeed be possible to maintain a long-distance Taken In Hand romantic relationship. As with all things, however, there is a balance; just as I would not want him to be with me all the time, so I would not want him to be away from me all the time. A healthy marriage requires both presence and absence, in due proportions. (Again, speaking strictly for myself here; I'm not sure how much, if any, of this content relates to other women or other Taken In Hand relationships.)

Another point to be made here is that clear and honest communications are absolutely essential, and especially during periods when he is away. It's virtually impossible to submit to the man's will if he's being shy or vague or evasive in his dominance, or if he's otherwise being unclear in exerting his control and expressing his loving leadership.